Governor Schwarzenegger's Veto
of Hemp Bill is Bad for the Environment, Farmers and
EconomyVeto is "Irrational"
Agriculture Policy Based on Fear

SACRAMENTO, CA —
Waiting until the last possible day to decide, Governor
Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed AB
1147, The California Industrial Hemp Farming
Act, late in the day on Saturday, September 30.
This landmark, bipartisan legislation if enacted would
have established clear guidelines for farming of industrial
hemp, which is used in a wide variety of everyday consumer
products, including food, body care, clothing, paper
and auto parts. Demand for hemp products has been growing
rapidly in recent years with the U.S. hemp
product market now exceeding an estimated $270 million
in annual retail sales. The new law would have given
farmers the ability to legally supply numerous California
manufacturers that currently import hemp seed, oil and
fiber.

"Governor Schwarzenegger's veto is
a let down for thousands of farmers, business people
and consumers who want to bring back industrial hemp
to California to create jobs, new tax income and to
benefit the environment," says Eric Steenstra,
founder and President of Vote Hemp, the nation's leading
industrial hemp farming advocacy group. "The veto
was not based on facts but instead on an irrational
fear he would look soft on drugs in an election year.
His veto message shows he knew industrial hemp is an
economic development and agriculture issue, but he instead
allowed himself to be cowed by confused Drug War lobbyists.
AB 1147 would have reigned in the overreach by federal
authorities that has prevented non-drug industrial hemp
varieties of cannabis from being grown on U.S. soil
for fiber and seed. It is disingenuous to cite federal
restrictions when Drug War lobbyists refuse to sit down
with the large coalition of farmers, business people
and environmentalists who crafted the industrial hemp
legislation. Industrial hemp will continue to be the
only crop in California that is legal to import, sell
and consume, but illegal to grow."

AB 1147 clarified that the cultivation
of industrial hemp is legal only on the condition it
contains no more than three tenths of one percent (0.3%)
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). The legislation was jointly
authored by Democratic Assemblyman Mark
Leno and Republican Assemblyman Chuck
Devore. The California Industrial Hemp Farming
Act passed its final vote in the Senate on August
16 by a margin of 26-13 and passed in the Assembly on
August 21 by a margin of 44-29.

"It's unfortunate that Governor Schwarzenegger
vetoed AB 1147. We had looked forward to the hemp oil
and seed in our products being grown and produced right
here in California," says David Bronner, Chair
of the Hemp
Industries Association's Food and Oil Committee
and President of ALPSNACK/Dr.
Bronner's Magic Soaps. "Farmers in California,
like farmers all across the United States, are always
looking for profitable crops like hemp to add to their
rotation. This veto clearly points out why HR
3037, the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2005,
needs to be passed on the federal
level."

According to USDA researcher Lyster H.
Dewey in the 1901 USDA Yearbook, hemp was first
cultivated in California in the late 1800's in Butte
County, near the town of Gridley, between Chico and
Yuba City. In the 1913 USDA Yearbook Mr. Dewey
wrote that "In 1912 hemp was first cultivated on
a commercial scale under irrigation at Lerdo, near Bakersfield,
Cal., and a larger acreage was grown there in 1913."
Commercial industrial hemp farming ceased in the state
shortly after World War II.

The last commercial hemp crops in the
United States were grown in central Wisconsin in 1957,
and these crops were purchased and processed by the
Rens Hemp Co. in Brandon, about 40 miles northwest of
Milwaukee. The primary reason industrial hemp has not
been grown in the U.S. since then is because of its
misclassification as a Schedule I drug in the Controlled
Substances Act (CSA) of 1970. The Marihuana Tax Act
of 1937 had provisions for farmers to grow non-psychoactive
hemp by paying
an annual occupational tax of $1.00. The exemption for
hemp products was contained in the definition of marihuana
in the Act:

"The term 'marihuana' means
all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L ... but shall
not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber
produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the
seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture,
salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such
mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom),
fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such
plant which is incapable of germination."

The language of the exemption was carried
over almost verbatim in the definition of marihuana
in the CSA [21 U.S.C. §802(16)] which superseded
the 1937 Tax Act, but since there was no active hemp
industry at the time the provisions for hemp farming
were not part of the new Act.

There is also an exemption for hemp farming
in the 1961 United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic
Drugs, as amended by the 1972 Protocol Amending the
1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. Article 28
states that:

"2. This Convention shall not
apply to the cultivation of the cannabis plant exclusively
for industrial purposes (fibre and seed) or horticultural
purposes."

The United States is a signatory of the
United Nations Single Convention, and laws allowing
the farming of industrial hemp would not be in
conflict with the agreement.

The industrial hemp plant's stalk is long
and strong, has few branches, has been bred for maximum
production of fiber and/or seed, and grows up to 16
feet in height. It is planted in densities of 100 to
300 plants per square yard. On the other hand, drug
varieties of cannabis grow up to only 6 feet or less
in height and have been bred to have many branches to
maximize flowering and minimize seeds. They are planted
with wide spaces between plants to enhance their bushiness.
The drug and non-drug varieties are harvested at different
times, and the planting densities look very different
from the air.

In 1999, California
Assemblywoman Virginia Strom-Martin introduced HR
32. The resolution declared, among other findings,
that the legislature should consider action to allow
industrial hemp production in California as an agricultural
and industrial crop. The Assembly passed HR 32 the following
month. Then Assemblywoman Strom-Martin introduced AB
448 in 2001 to license industrial hemp for commercial
purposes. The bill died in committee. In 2002, Assemblywoman
Strom-Martin introduced AB
388, requesting that the University of California
conduct an assessment of industrial hemp among other
crops. AB 388 ultimately passed the legislature but
was vetoed by Governor Gray Davis later that year.

Seven states
(Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana, North Dakota
and West Virginia) have already changed their laws to
give farmers an affirmative right to grow industrial
hemp commercially or for research purposes; however,
unlike California's AB 1147, all require a license from
the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to grow the
crop. Only Hawaii
has grown hemp in recent years, but the research program
ended when the DEA refused to renew the license. California's
AB 1147 addressed the DEA's bad faith interference by
providing that the federal government has no basis or
right to interfere with industrial hemp grown in California
pursuant to AB 1147.

Vote Hemp is a non-profit organization
dedicated to the acceptance of and a free market for
industrial hemp and to changes in current law to allow
U.S. farmers to grow low-THC industrial hemp. More information
about hemp legislation and the crop's many uses may
be found at www.VoteHemp.com
and www.HempIndustries.org.
BETA SP or DVD Video News Release featuring footage
of hemp farming in other countries is available upon
request by contacting Adam Eidinger at 202-744-2671.